Clarification of protest regarding the CWG charter and working methods

["Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>]

I refer to the following E-Mail:

  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-September/001748.html

I disagree that the issue is one of perception.  From my point of view, it
is a substantive issue. The CWG charter says:

"Membership in the CWG and in sub-working groups, should these be created,
is open to members appointed by the chartering organizations."

...

"In addition, the CWG will be open to any interested person as an observer.
... Observers will be able to actively participate in and attend all CWG
meetings; however, any consensus calls or decisions that need to be made
will be limited to CWG members appointed by the chartering organizations."

Thus it seems clear to me that the charter implies that consensus calls will
be based only on the views expressed by CWG members appointed by the
chartering organizations.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: dimanche, 28. septembre 2014 10:35
> To: icg-forum@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Protest regarding the CWG charter and working methods
>
>
> I refer to the call for observers to join the Cross Community
> Working Group (CWG), posted at:
>
>   https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-26-en
>
> And to the charter of that group, posted at:
>
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-c
> harter-14aug14-en.pdf
>
> The charter fails to note that the NTIA called for the IANA
> stewardship function to be transitioned to "the global
> multistakeholder community", which is broader than the existing
> ICANN constituency.
>
> It also fails to note that the IETF and the RIRs have responded
> to the NTIA"s call and to the formation of the ICG by creating
> fully open processes to discuss the transition.
>
> In contrast, the CWG, while stating that it will adhere to the
> principle of opennes, has in fact created a two-tier structure,
> with decision-making power being restricted to a specific group
> of stakeholders, namely those currently involved in the domain
> name business.
>
> There is of course nothing wrong with a subset of stakeholders
> conducting consultations and presenting proposals, so I have no
> objection to the CWG per se and I am not prejudging the output of the CWG.
>
> But it is not a process that is truly open to the global
> multistakeholder community.
>
> Therefore I will not participate as an observer and I reserve my
> right to send comments directly to the ICG, pursuant to the ICG
> charter, regarding the output of the CWG.
>
> Sincerly,
> Richard Hill
>
>